Re: /usr/sbin/sendmail specification proposal, draft 5

[Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@transmeta.com>]

Daniel Quinlan wrote:

>> To deliver electronic mail (email), applications shall use either the
>> interface provided by /usr/sbin/sendmail (described here) or the SMTP
>> protocol (RFC 821 using a TCP connection on port 25 to either the
>> local host or a remote host).

H Peter Anvin <hpa@transmeta.com> writes:

> Using a remote host, as well as using a nonstandard port and SMTP over
> SSL, require application-specific configuration and is thus beyond the
> scope of the standard.  We could make a specification, but personally
> I think it's a bad idea -- it would mean inventing a new interface
> which no app currently supports.

If you're saying that we shouldn't limit applications to only the above
two options (SMTP over SSL being another option), then I agree.

I meant to say that LSB applications must deliver mail by

  a) using /usr/sbin/sendmail

  OR

  b) support SMTP over TCP on server port 25 to the local host;
     support SMTP over TCP on server port 25 to a remote host

So, it would *not* be sufficient for LSB compliance to support *only*
SMTP over SSL.

To rephrase things a bit:

     To deliver electronic mail (email), applications shall use either
     the interface provided by /usr/sbin/sendmail (described here) or
     an internet protocol such as SMTP (RFC 821).  If an application
     is unable to deliver mail via the /usr/sbin/sendmail interface,
     then it shall minimally support using SMTP over TCP connecting to
     port 25 of either the local host or a remote host.

I'm considering dropping the last sentence entirely.  The point was to
require applications to use /usr/sbin/sendmail instead of mail or
mailx.  I'm not sure I want to go too far beyond that.

Dan